Serra Ascendant
General forum
Posted on Jan. 26, 2014, 1:11 p.m. by Didgeridooda
I was playing the xbox version 2013. The one that was free a while back. Serra Ascendant was altered in that game to when you "have 10 more life then your starting total" instead of "30 life" to trigger the +5+5. That is pretty close to errata.
I do not have a problem with that card being played in 2HG or EDH, but it is a very strong first turn play that requires an answer. Is everyone happy with this inevitable change in the official errata, or does this bother anyone? Also do you think this will bring down the price of Serra Ascendant ?
Didgeridooda says... #3
I also think that the price would drop to the 4-5 dollar range.
January 26, 2014 1:14 p.m.
The problem with that is that it opens the question to things like Felidar Sovereign and Divinity of Pride , neither of which have nearly as many problems in EDH/2HG, but it would be hard to argue that they should also get this errata.
There is also the fact that wizards does not like to do functional errata anymore. I find it more likely that DotP 2013 was badly programmed (I remember it wouldn't save unlocking new cards for decks pretty regularly) rather than it being a preview of functional errata.
January 26, 2014 1:25 p.m.
Epochalyptik says... #5
"Inevitable errata?" No.
WOTC has a habit of making DotP easier for people to learn and play. That's why combat damage is visually marked as reducing toughness.
There's no reason for WOTC to errata Serra Ascendant .
January 26, 2014 1:34 p.m.
Didgeridooda says... #6
They reworded the card. I saw that as something they are going to change. Are there any other functional differences in that game from paper rules?
January 26, 2014 1:45 p.m.
aFriendlyAlly says... #7
Sure a turn one Serra ascendant may be strong, but if you're playing EDH, you can expect one of the other players to have an answer. After a couple turns, theres better cards when you have the mana. It's still an extremely strong card, but it's pretty fair considering you're versing 3+ other people.
January 26, 2014 1:46 p.m.
Damage is shown by reducing toughness rather than being marked on the creature (although it may be represented differently in the actual code), the game by default does not allow you to target your own creatures with negative effects, and you (usually) do not have a choice about what lands are tapped to pay for a spell.
It's also worth noting that the game is a year and a half old. That means they had plenty of time to errata the card if they wanted. Serra Ascendant is really only a problem in EDH, and since Wizards does not exert direct control over EDH, it is likely that they will not errata the card anytime soon.
January 26, 2014 1:50 p.m.
Epochalyptik says... #9
@Didgeridooda: Again, they reworded it on DotP. Changes made to the game through DotP are, for the most part, irrelevant because DotP caters to a lower skill range and aims to make learning and interpreting the game easier.
January 26, 2014 1:55 p.m.
TurboFagoot says... #10
I believe DotP still offers a "free" mulligan to seven, yeah? Doesn't mean that rule is changing any time soon lol
January 26, 2014 2:02 p.m.
I have personally dropped a turn one Serra Ascendant three times in the past two weeks. The first game I dropped it in was a three player EDH game and as soon as I passed turn the next player had a Path to Exile for it. The second game was also a three player EDH game and even though it wasn't removed one player used Phantasmal Image on it and the other player used Rite of Replication very early in the game. The third game I actually had it in my opening was a one player EDH game and it did serious work.
I know the card is controversial but honestly the chances of actually having it in your opening hand is small and always responded too in a multi-player game. And if you draw it later in the game it's not that great.
January 27, 2014 1:12 a.m.
as far as DotP changes cards to better work in their system. I believe they've actually changed power/toughnesses or casting costs, things WotC has never done in the cardboard game.
January 27, 2014 7:21 a.m.
SharuumNyan says... #13
It's interesting that they would change the text for that game. But it could have been a miscommunication between Wizards and the company that programmed the game.
The card is broken in EDH, since the card was created with the intention to be used in a life gain deck and not a deck where you start out with that much life. Yes, it's easy to get rid of, but so many things on the banned list can be countered or removed. I have a big problem with the EDH banned list and what is and isn't on it. How come Metalworker is banned but Omniscience isn't? There is so much enchantment removal out there, I don't even see why Fastbond is banned. As the game changes and new cards are printed, a banned list is supposed to be revisited and changed. Has the EDH banned list even seen any revisions since it was created?
January 27, 2014 10:27 a.m.
@SharuumNyan Griselbrand and Worldfire are both on it, so I know its been updated some time since Innistrad block. I think Kokyusho used to be banned entirely, instead of merely as a commander, so I think it changes.
I don't see the connection between Metalworker and Omnisicience. They are very different cards. The problem with Fastbond is that getting 4 or 5 lands into play turn 1 makes it very difficult for the others to deal with you, and there is little turn 1/turn 0 enchantment removal.
Didgeridooda says... #2
I have not seen a first turn Serra Ascendant really do all that much damage. They always get taken out pretty quickly. I do know that some of the people here hate that card with a passion. I would be indifferent to the errata personally. I do think that it makes more sense though. I do not think the card was designed to work as it does.
January 26, 2014 1:13 p.m.